Handles well on rough terrain and isn’t as heavy as military equivalents, and is a better multipurpose vehicle. It is heavily customizable, with roof racks, cargo boxes, roll cages, extra lights, tow cables, and various bumpers that could be added to it.
It can carry 10 people at full capacity (including driver and front passenger seat) with bench seats in the back like this.
And I meant more of a ranger/militia equivalent, not civiilan.
Also, armoured trucks/bank vans like this don’t have seats in the back. A better idea for civilian equivalents would be an armoured police van/SWAT type of thing, slow and heavy with some seats in the back.
i mean, most people don’t want them removed, so i changed my mind kinda. I don’t think they should be like they are in 3.0, and shouldn’t be able to go into the water.
APCs should have tracks and mounted guns, and tanks shouldn’t be added I don’t think.
it’s more of a multipurpose vehicle that can carry a lot of people and stuff, so kinda the ranger equivalent to the apc but also the jeep or humvee perhaps
Yeah for sure. Do you think these sort of things would let you decorate the interior? So like if you wanted to you could add a washing machine and a frying pan cupboard to your van?
Depends on what you are assuming “ranger” to be in II.
If you mean militia equipment (which I think you are) then I think vehicles like this would be fine. However, assuming Nelson is continuing the idea that militia groups have old soviet equipment, then an old UAZ-469 or something similar would better fill the role.
If Nelson decides to have militia gear better reflect locality, then Western militias should be using older NATO weapons and civilian (like the truck you suggested)/military vehicles; same with some European ones.
but maps set in ex-eastern bloc countries should have UAZ vehicles as military vehicles, and ranger stuff should be 4WDs and technicals made from pickups, as well as land rovers and stuff like that.
No idea why a militia in the US/Canada would use UAZ vehicles.
